Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Moral Dilemmas: Affirmative Action, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics, Study notes of Ethics

Various moral and philosophical issues related to affirmative action, animal rights, and environmental ethics. Topics include preferential hiring, quota hiring, consequences of affirmative action, speciesism, animal liberation, inherent value, moral agents and patients, biocentric outlook on nature, and endangered species. Essay questions are provided to stimulate critical thinking and debate.

Typology: Study notes

Pre 2010

Uploaded on 12/12/2009

mstrow-13
mstrow-13 🇺🇸

10 documents

1 / 11

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Chapter 10: Discrimination
A. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
a. Lists general guidelines as steps to affirmative action
b. Under these steps firms must:
i. Issue a written equal-employment policy and an affirmative action commitment
ii. Appoint a top official with responsibility and authority to direct and implement their
program
iii. Publicize their policy and affirmative action commitment
iv. Survey female and minority employment by department and job classification, and
where underrepresentation of these groups, firms must develop goals and timetables in
order to achieve these goals
B. Affirmative Action: positive measures beyond neutral nondiscriminatory and merit hiring employment
practices. It is an aggressive program intended to identify and remedy unfair discrimination practiced
against many people who are qualified for jobs.
a. Preferential Hiring- an employment practice designed to give special consideration to people
from groups that traditionally have been victimized racism, sexism, or other forms of
discrimination.
b. Quota Hiring- sometimes ordered by courts for a specific organization that had expressly refused
to hire certain groups, until some appropriate balance could be achieved.
c. Individual vs. Collective approaches
i. Individual being discriminated against vs. collective race being discriminated against in
the past that set the race back
ii. Individual is not discriminating but not doing anything about it. Only hiring on
qualifications.
iii. Collective approach, unfortunately discrimination can be institutional or unintentional.
Not only should we not discriminate, but we should enforce with laws that eliminate
discrimination. Hiring based on affirmative action.
C. Types of discrimination
a. Intentional/unintentional: knowingly vs. unknowingly
b. Individual/ institutional: one person making an assumption vs. business, company, corporation,
profession, system doing it
c. Reverse Discrimination- unfair treatment of a majority member (usually a white male).
D. Beauchamp:
a. Problems with individual approaches
i. Two Polar Positions
1. We’re going to have equal opportunity. If you can prove you’ve been
discriminated against, we will try him. But we will not have quotas or certain
amounts of minorities.
2. Sets standards of affirmative action. In the future who will be discriminated
against?
b. Voluntary corporate affirmative action policies
i. Improved Work Force: more diverse, well rounded wore force
ii. Bias -free corporate environment
iii. Congenial to managerial plannin
E. Wasserstrom:
a. Internal consistency of affirmative action- intellectual inconsistencies, back when racism and
sexism was big, those people were held back and now that they are not big facets of everyday
life, it is inconsistent with the past. Therefore he says that reverse discrimination is not wrong
because we are not trying to discriminate against the white male, we are just trying to
compensate for previous setbacks of minorities.
b. Qualifications of employment- generally, the idea that so long as you’re qualified, that is enough
to become that. Qualifications are what matter, so long as the candidate meets all of the
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa

Partial preview of the text

Download Moral Dilemmas: Affirmative Action, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics and more Study notes Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!

Chapter 10: Discrimination A. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: a. Lists general guidelines as steps to affirmative action b. Under these steps firms must: i. Issue a written equal-employment policy and an affirmative action commitment ii. Appoint a top official with responsibility and authority to direct and implement their program iii. Publicize their policy and affirmative action commitment iv. Survey female and minority employment by department and job classification, and where underrepresentation of these groups, firms must develop goals and timetables in order to achieve these goals B. Affirmative Action : positive measures beyond neutral nondiscriminatory and merit hiring employment practices. It is an aggressive program intended to identify and remedy unfair discrimination practiced against many people who are qualified for jobs. a. Preferential Hiring - an employment practice designed to give special consideration to people from groups that traditionally have been victimized racism, sexism, or other forms of discrimination. b. Quota Hiring - sometimes ordered by courts for a specific organization that had expressly refused to hire certain groups, until some appropriate balance could be achieved. c. Individual vs. Collective approaches i. Individual being discriminated against vs. collective race being discriminated against in the past that set the race back ii. Individual is not discriminating but not doing anything about it. Only hiring on qualifications. iii. Collective approach, unfortunately discrimination can be institutional or unintentional. Not only should we not discriminate, but we should enforce with laws that eliminate discrimination. Hiring based on affirmative action. C. Types of discrimination a. Intentional/unintentional: knowingly vs. unknowingly b. Individual/ institutional: one person making an assumption vs. business, company, corporation, profession, system doing it c. Reverse Discrimination- unfair treatment of a majority member (usually a white male). D. Beauchamp: a. Problems with individual approaches i. Two Polar Positions

  1. We’re going to have equal opportunity. If you can prove you’ve been discriminated against, we will try him. But we will not have quotas or certain amounts of minorities.
  2. Sets standards of affirmative action. In the future who will be discriminated against? b. Voluntary corporate affirmative action policies i. Improved Work Force: more diverse, well rounded wore force ii. Bias -free corporate environment iii. Congenial to managerial plannin E. Wasserstrom: a. Internal consistency of affirmative action- intellectual inconsistencies, back when racism and sexism was big, those people were held back and now that they are not big facets of everyday life, it is inconsistent with the past. Therefore he says that reverse discrimination is not wrong because we are not trying to discriminate against the white male, we are just trying to compensate for previous setbacks of minorities. b. Qualifications of employment- generally, the idea that so long as you’re qualified, that is enough to become that. Qualifications are what matter, so long as the candidate meets all of the

requirements at the minimum, a candidate with a maximum in one area does not succeed the other. Well rounded qualifications, minimally qualified. The best fit wins. F. Blackstone: a. Consequences and justice of affirmative action i. Not practical: You are not responsible for your ancestors doing bad things. This isn’t fair. ii. Slippery slope: Other minorities will claim setbacks as well. iii. Reverse discrimination: Affirmative Action programs are Reverse Discrimination programs and they don’t endorse themselves, philosophically. The programs are there to support the overcoming of discrimination but they set back the typical white male. b. Practical problems with quota systems i. It effectively eliminates others from the competition, disregarding qualifications. ii. And when this happens, how will we justify it when reverse discrimination is illegal is prohibited by our constitutional and ethical commitments? iii. Neutral compensatory policies can replace AA guidelines, and compsensate those who have had burdens set upon them. Neutral organizations would grant compensation rather than there be AA guidelines. These organizations would support overcoming discrimination where as reverse discrimination, or AA, would not. Chapter 11: Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics A. Three approaches to environmental ethics a. Anthropocentric- Human centered b. Biocentric- Life centered c. Ecocentric- Ecosystem centered B. Singer- a. Greatest Happiness Principle b. Sentience and utilitarian ethics - i. Suffer without Physical pain, and Pain without Suffering, the capacity to suffer or be happy. Since we morally ought to maximize happiness and minimize suffering, since nonhuman animals are just as capable of happiness and suffering as human animals, our calculations ought to include them as well. c. Speciesism- i. Relevant difference-Cruelty to animals is wrong but do they matter as much or more than humans or other animals? d. Animal Liberation- “All sentient beings are equal” i. Spectrum of living things, from trees to humans. Trees cannot feel pain. They are not sentient. Scallops are not truly sentient; they just have a nervous system. Humans would be at the top of the list, being sentient, having the ability to reason and rationalize. C. Regan a. Subjects of a life - i. That the animals have a certain sense of FLO, animals have the right to have a full and natural life. b. Inherent value vs. instrumental value- i. that individuals of moral worth have a value independent of their capacities or interests; the being has rights if it has inherent value. Instrumental means an animal is need because it is about to be extinct and helps nature. Ex: If an animal is needed to help humans or nature. c. Moral agents vs. moral patients- i. moral agents are beings who are free and rational and thus capable of making of decisions on their own. ii. moral patients are those who we care about but cannot be free rational at the time, or fully developed. EX: 10 year old, pet, person in a coma

Were the experiments conducted by Dr. Thomas Gennarelli at the University of Pennsylvania’s Experimental Head Injury Lab ethical? Did the baboons used in these experiments have a right not to be harmed in this manner, even though the results of the experiments could potentially benefit human beings? Is there another way that this data could have obtained that did not harm animals?

  1. Animal Rights FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS Philosophical Tradition Kant: His theory is that if you are cruel to animals its only a matter of time before you move to people. Kant => animals have feelings. Singer: Sentience= pain and suffering, many animals have the abilities to feel pain and suffer and be aware of it. Speciesism- prejudice against a species just because they are not, in our case, human. Such as sexism or racism. (Singer is against speciesism) Regan: Subjects of a life. Self aware enough to make cognitive decisions. As simple as staying away from an electric fence that they know would hurt them. Inherent values- animals have need or certain special necessities too. Utilitarianism Greatest happiness principle Animal Liberation- if there is not a good reason for harming an animal then it is wrong. “all sentient beings are equal” e.g. if we needed meat to live then it would be just for us to kill animals for food. Deontology Moral Patients= unable to make decisions. e.g. An infant has moral value but is not capable of making its own cognitive decisions. Moral Agents= the ability to make the correct / appropriate decision. Problems with Utilitarianism Regan- free range chicken example (what’s wrong with eating them/ killing them humanely) vs. “free range hobo” example ( no one is going to miss him). It is still wrong to take his life. AGAINST ANIMAL RIGHTS (anthropocentric) Baxter- if it is impacting our life in a good way then they should be saved if not then they do not matter. If they dont serve us then they have no importance. Counter Arguments
    1. Giving other animals rights would lead to absurd interference with nature.
      • What’s more natural than eating other animals? If we don’t have the right to violate another animal’s rights, neither does a wolf. So what happens to the predator?
    2. Putting our own species first is the natural thing to do.
      • We care more about our parents than random strangers, so what is so wrong about caring about our species, before other species?

Should human beings care about endangered species such as the spotted owl? What obligations, if any, do human have to individual animals, whole species, and the natural environment as a whole? Is it acceptable to only keep those species alive that directly benefit human beings by aiming for an “optimal level of pollution”?

  1. Endangered Species and Environmental Ethics Anthropocentric= centered on human well being Baxter- if the animal is benefiting us as humans than we should keep it alive, if it is doing people no good then there is no obligation to save or protect it. Biocentric= life centered - rights Taylor- everything has intrinsic value. to all living things Ecocentric= ecosystem centered - the value of the whole system, damaging one small part will negatively affect the entire system. Optimal level of pollution (Baxter) = -killing one animal won’t hurt us, -killing a species all together might affect human life, -the environment as a whole we do need to take care of to an extent bc we want an environment that we will be happy living in.
    • we don’t worry about pollution until it hurts us.

Should pornography be widely available on the Internet? What are the criteria for obscene speech and what types of pornography count as obscene for adults and for children? Does pornography cause significant enough harm to individuals and society that it should be banned? What legal limitations should we place on it? Richard Spinello A) Miller v. Califorinia 1973  Criteria for obscene speech (wrong for everyone)-

  1. it depicts sexual or excretory acts explicitly prohibited by state law
  2. it appeals to prurient interests as judged by a reasonable person using community standards
  3. it has no serious literary, artistic, social, political, or scientific value.  EX of obscene pornography: A “snuff film” showing the rape and murder of a teenager and child pornography. B) What harm-
  4. It’s harmful to minors if it is predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interests of minors,
  5. It’s patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors
  6. It’s utterly without redeeming social importance for minors.
  7. These things can desensitize the act of sex for minors, and make it to where they don’t know the ramifications of sex fully. C) Legal Limitations-
  8. COPA II- Child Online Protection Act- Makes it illegal for operators of commercial Web sites to make sexually explicit materials harmful to minors available to those younger than seventeen years of age (check box that states the person is 18).
  9. SurfWatch that prohibits more than 30,000 websites many containing pornography this helps parents watch their children where they go on the web and stops them from going to certain websites.

Should stem cell research be legal in the United States? Is there anything wrong with using stem cells to help cure diseases affecting adults and children, or does it just depend on the type of stem cell used? Is it ethical to use embryonic stem cells? A) Criteria for human: Bonnie Steinbock I. Biological vs. personhood- a. has human DNA, b. is a full member of a moral community c. has interests that entail certain rights B) Feinbergs’ interest principle applied to embryo’s- a. is only morally permissible using either discarded or created embryos- b. embryos in the early-gestation have no consciousness, no awareness, no experiences of any kind, even the most rudimentary. c. No sentience. C) Marquis’ FLO argument vs. McMahan’s mind essentialism (carpa diem) – a. Marquis, FLO, abortion is only okay for horrible deformity, not the oops i. Marquis’ Potential problems in Interest View

  1. it’s not wrong to kill someone in a coma. Because he doesn’t have an interest, and therefore has no right to life.
  2. Secondly, killing suicidal people is okay because they have no interest in life. ii. Steinbock Refutes to Marquis’ counterarguments
  3. If we were to wake the guy in a coma up, he would say keep me alive. But we are not able to wake him up. Therefore this is not vulnerable. D) Moral status of blastocysts a. FLO applies to fetus but Steinbock says embryo hasn’t been implanted yet, not developed yet. b. An embryo outside the body, by its self, has no FLO. It would die on its own. E) Paul Lauritzen-Stem cell research is morally problematic
  4. Embodiment, human rights, and human nature:
  5. Social consequences of altering human cycle
  6. Threat to human identity
  7. Nussbaum, disgust, and compassion
  8. Instrumentalization of nature

What are the benefits and limitations of the USA PATRIOT Act? Is it just? If we suspected a US citizen of having terrorist ties to Al Qaeda, would it be just to tap his phone, read his e-mail, search his premises, confiscate his property and incarcerate him indefinitely? If we suspected that he had information about a planned terrorist strike, would it be ethical to torture him until he revealed that information? The plan for this essay is to explain what the PATRIOT Act is and how it is unjust using the examples provided. Then we are going to say that Dershowitz states blah blah blah.. which says it is permissible to do the actions provided in the essay question. BUT we are going to say that his arguments are knocked down by Luban’s counterarguments, and ultimately it is not ethical to torture and/or treat human beings in such ways. USA Patriot Act David Cole A) Guilt by association - If you have ever associated with anyone who might be associated with terrorists, you are in trouble. B) Due process - We usually have to provide evidence that there is potential danger to lock someone up. With this, we do not need anything. We can lock anyone up indefinitely without any evidence whatsoever. You lose due process; you do not get a trial. C) Search & seizure - For someone to search your stuff, one must attain a warrant that is backed up with evidence that you are engaged in illegal activity. Under this, D) Military tribunals - Applying military guidelines to people of no military association and not in a time of war. In military tribunals, people cannot E) Attorney- client privilege- Normally what goes on between you and your attorney is confidential. Not under this; everything is out in the open. Because of the 5th^ amendment you do not have to testify against yourself. F) Profiling- Ethnic profiling. “Muslim terrorists” are wrong stereotypes. Most Muslims do not condone what Al Qaeda has done. Not every Muslim is a terrorist! Arguments FOR torture: Alan Dershowitz A) “ticking time bomb” a. Ex: Girl buried with 2 hours of oxygen and guy won’t speak B) Torture warrant a. Court ordered by a judge b. So that we don’t violate certain things, we have restrictions c. If he is a terrorist, then we are authorized to do certain things but not other exteme Counter Arguments AGAINST: David Luban A) The number game, chance & certainty a. Chance that the guy knows what you want to know and if he will tell you i. EX: Pakistani that said there were WMD that got us into war after being water boarded for 2.5 minutes and other various tortures. Did he just say that to stop the toture? b. Certainty is that I am intentionally casing pain to another human being based on the chance of them may or may not knowing something c. Ticking time bomb never really happens B) Practice vs. Policy a. What actually works in interrogation? b. Befriending terrorist is a better way of attaining information rather than torture. c. As of now we can perform enhanced interrogation strategies which allow shoving, but not hitting C) Torture culture a. Do we really want to inhabit a torture culture? i. EX: Majoring in Torturing, etc.

What is Charles Murray’s thought experiment about welfare? How would welfare capitalists, libertarians, and socialists respond to this proposition? If this thought experiment became reality, would it be just and would it have good consequences? Is there a middle-ground position on welfare that provides equal opportunity while eliminating the possibility of free-loaders (e.g., Emmitt the waiter)? Charles Murray (argues that we kill all welfare, free market system) i. The idea that welfare is taken away will take away comfort from free loaders a. This will spur everyone else will search harder and try harder to be successful and therefore freeloaders can’t successfully fall behind because there won’t be anything there to take care of them. He says let’s take away the net underneath the tight rop Welfare Capitalists (Rawls) *would be against Murray because capitalists would say that people need help in attaining A) Difference principle is defined as financial inequalities are only acceptable if they benefit society as a whole. B) Primary goods: We need to make sure everyone in society has access to primary good. A primary good is anything someone needs for a god life. Nutrition, Education, Health Care and Safe Housing Libertarians (John Hospers) *would endorse Murray because libertarians do not like people living off of others means. A) Natural Rights: life, liberty and property a. If I worked for it, I deserve it. Property rights make long range future planning happen. b. If people don’t have property rights, then nobody will do work because everyone will just steal from each other. c. The fruit of one’s labor should not be up for grabs by another. They cannot take your labor and the fruits of it, and claim it has his own. Freeloaders are unjust, unethical. Socialists (Marx) *In a socialist economy welfare would not exist. There would be no need for it because of the following:

  1. Everyone’s basic needs are taken care of
  2. Everyone is guaranteed a job
  3. Everyone receives equal pay If this were to become reality, the effects on people are the following:
  1. The first category includes really rich people, who are not affected by this at all.
  2. The second group is the middle class in which they may lose a little bit of change
  3. Third group is the (upper) lower class that will have to make arrangements to survive: work! They will be mad but this is good because these people would be forced to work and grow up. People will become more responsible. Ex: dead beat dads and welfare moms.
  4. The fourth group consists of the people who have no alternative. Ex: teenage mother, people who have been kicked out, handicapped. But there are charities for these types of people to take care of them. Communities will help their neighbors. But what happens when they don’t?
  5. The very last group consists of Emmitts and they will die. These people are a waste of space and should not be taken care of even by charities. They are not worth educating, either. Middle-ground Position Trudy Govier The Puritan Position: a. In a society with sufficient resources, we ought to have a legal right to state-supplied welfare benefits; this right ought to be conditional, however, on one’s willingness to work. b. We don’t allow the free loaders in this position